Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply On Plea Challenging Validity Of NIA Act 2008
· Free Press Journal
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Centre and others on a plea challenging the validity of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Visit chickenroadslot.pro for more information.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Centre, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and others seeking their responses on the plea.
"Issue notice," the bench said, noting that the questions raised before it were of vital importance, The plea has sought the setting aside of the 2008 Act, claiming it was "violative" of Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution and beyond the legislative competence of the Centre.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) was set up under the Act as a central counter-terrorism law enforcement agency in the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
The court directed that a counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within four weeks and the petitioner would thereafter have two weeks to file the rejoinder affidavit.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the petitioner, said 'police' falls under the State List.
He referred to various provisions of the 2008 Act, including Section 3 which deals with the constitution of the NIA.
"Without being a police station, can the NIA register an FIR?" the bench asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who was appearing in the matter.
Supreme Court Rejects Umar Khalid’s Review Plea In 2020 Delhi Riots Conspiracy CaseAlso Watch:
Dave also referred to Section 6 (5) of the Act, which deals with the investigation of scheduled offences and says: if the Centre is of the opinion that a scheduled offence has been committed which is required to be investigated under this Act, it may suo motu direct the agency to probe it.
"You will have to assist us on the suo motu registration of FIR also," the bench told the law officer.
The top court, which said the questions raised before it were of vital importance, posted the matter for hearing on July 14.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)